The word “liberty” is one of the most used, least understood concepts in the American lexicon. I’ll take it from the beginning.
Citizens of a republic have unalienable rights (i.e., unable to be taken away from the possessor): “WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….“
In addition, our Bill of Rights (thanks to the anti-federalists’ campaign for the insertion of these rights into the Constitution) offer protections for our liberties and civic duties: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Both the lack of interference and the lack of domination are important in establishing liberty. Classic liberalism places an emphasis on the lack of interference with the individual, while republicanism focuses on the lack of domination or even the potential for domination of the individual by powerful interests. This translates to the citizenry of a republic wherein individuals can live without fear from the larger majority, regardless of the individual’s gender, race, creed or other personal preferences, thus maintaining their private liberties.
The lack of interference and lack of domination are critical to a functioning republic, but there are caveats.
Liberty seems to be an easy concept to grasp, but becomes very complex and difficult to balance in daily life. It starts with the individual’s responsibility towards maintaining the republic by engaging in the political process (see my post, “Why Our Federal Gov’t Unravelled, Part 2“).
It also helps to frame liberty’s individual effects as the attainment of respect, recognition, and dignity by one’s endeavors, not self-indulgence in all of its manifestations.
This leaves our unchecked hyperindividualism in an uncomfortable position. We are willing to accept the notion of freedom in individual pursuits and freedom in markets, but we are unwilling to shoulder the responsibility of being the moral agents necessary to keep those individual pursuits and free markets viable, as pressed in Adam Smith’s arguments: While we readily embrace his work, The Wealth of Nations, we largely ignore Smith’s prelude to Nations, A Theory of Moral Sentiments. In Moral Sentiments, Smith asserts that one learns to define oneself as part of a moral universe of agents, i.e., society. When society acts as the mirror in which we catch sight of ourselves, this provides the checks and balances for a person’s public morals. As Smith portrays it, society is a necessary part of our humanity, and of our economic and political endeavors.1
Today, in large, mobile societies with little in the way of a local community acting as a mirror, the anonymous individual has been able to turn his or her liberties into license, a trend even the classic liberalist John Locke warned against. A Wall Street banker, for instance, can undertake unethical or illegal business practices with impunity, as the banker can act anonymously and without accountability or transparency to fellow citizens, since no meaningful community exists for that banker.
The sad irony here is that in spite of our embrace of license disguised as liberty, self expression, or entrepreneurial spirit, we also are burdened with mind-numbing anonymity and a lack of purpose in life because we sell our skills and abilities without meaning as we take need of an employer’s paycheck, again as an effect of the lack of local communities and local economies. We are seldom recognized for or defined by our skills and efforts. As Swedish economist and Nobel laureate Gunnar Myrdal wrote, “ … economic necessity may force a free man to make a contract which binds him for a long time or which conflicts in some other way with his liberty.” What Myrdal conveys here is that we willingly surrender our liberties, and in the end we are dominated because we allow our desires for materialistic gains and the subsequent debt to accumulate unchecked.
Thankfully, Myrdal goes on to provide a way out of our existential cubicles: “Most people who are reasonably well off derive more satisfaction in their capacity as producers than as consumers.” Thus, the balance we seek emanates, in part, from acting as independent producers, working in the context of local economies. Local economies (discussed in more detail on my page “The economic foundation of independent proprietors”) establish a beachhead for an individual’s respect, recognition, dignity, and the retention of liberties.
Balancing liberties has been an issue since the dawn of republicanism. Montesquieu, in The Spirit of Laws (1748), noted that the main virtue of a legislator is moderation. The playwright Terence (~190 to 159 BC) lived, tellingly, in the Roman Republic era. A former slave brought to Rome by a senator, he was set free after he impressed his master with his abilities. In his play Andria, the insightful Terence wrote:
“Ne quid nimis,”
that is,
“Moderation in all things.”
To be successful, republicanism needs to be infused with a sense of moderation.
1Although society acts as a counterbalance for public morals, in The Wealth of Nations Smith also recognized that the division of labor inevitably stultifies the working classes. The wage laborer’s “dexterity as his own particular trade seems… to be acquired at the expense of his intellectual, social, and marital virtues” (Book 5, Chapter 1, Part 3, Second Article, Fifth Edition). In an unsophisticated interpretation, Smith observed that education, civic engagement and family cohesion go to hell in a handbasket in a contemporary, industrial society. Yet, paradoxically Smith defended the division of labor as the means by which to promote productivity, and productivity brings material prosperity to a nation. What are we to make of this seeming conflict of interest? Smith suggested the “government takes some pains to prevent it.” And you thought Smith was a proponent of laissez-faire; this was most certainly a convenient out for our philosophical friend. Personally, I’m skeptical as to how bloated bureaucracies as seen in present-day governments of developed economies the world over could rectify such a situation. Perhaps the division of labor hasn’t turned out to be as promising looking backwards now as it looked to Smith looking forward then.
No comments:
Post a Comment